Hawley’s Graves, the Forgotten Treasures of Stonehenge

by Dennis on June 7, 2012

We’ve recently learned of plans for a Visitors Centre at Stonehenge, although I admittedly feel as if it’s Groundhog Day whenever I write about this subject. At the same time, however, it seems certain that Amesbury will soon have a museum of its own, so it seems inevitable that the facilities for tourists and visitors at Stonehenge and Amesbury will need relevant and engaging pieces of some kind for their new display stands.

I don’t have the faintest idea what the respective proprietors have in mind to place in their forthcoming facilities, although I’m reasonably sure that the trustees of Salisbury Museum would also want to ensure that their displays also attracted paying visitors. One obvious and immediate solution to all this seems to be provided for in the opening paragraph of page 348 of Stonehenge in its Landscape, part of a study of finds assemblages written by my former colleague Julie Gardiner:

“Although a large number of artefacts from the excavations at Stonehenge remain in museum collections, those that survive for examination represent only a fraction of the total recovered. It is now almost impossible to quantify what proportion of the total is extant, since material was discarded at several stages by the principal excavators and some pieces known to have been kept by them can no longer be traced. It is known, for instance, that Hawley reburied a considerable quantity in a series of pits located to the south-east of the monument. The position of these ‘Graves’, as he termed them, is known and they are visible on some aerial photographs taken at the time (see Fig 11, above). Precisely what went into these pits is not known, nor how the material was redeposited, but here it presumably remains….”

Before I proceed, I should point out that I’ve reproduced Julie’s exact words above, but the aerial photograph in question unmistakably shows that the ‘graves’ in question lie to the south-west of the monument. Such a mistake is easy to make and I’ve done the same here on Eternal Idol a number of times before now, but I simply point these things out for the purpose of forestalling any needless correspondence on precisely what appeared in the respective text and photos in Stonehenge in its Landscape. Also, for the benefit of those who aren’t aware of who Hawley was, he was Lieutenant-Colonel William Hawley, who conducted excavations at Stonehenge between 1919 and 1926.

Otherwise, these ‘graves’ aren’t immediately obvious in the photograph provided in Stonehenge in its Landscape, but a there’s a much clearer series of features in the photograph below and furthermore, these features are in precisely the same place as indicated in Stonehenge in its Landscape.

So, here the guessing game begins…how many of ‘Hawley’s Graves’ were there? If the white features above, indicated by the red arrow, are the newly-covered pits in question, then there seem to be as many as 11 of them. Were they all pits into which Hawley tipped the discoveries he’d made at Stonehenge? I have no idea, but if the location and purpose of these pits is known to us, then it seems likely that they were all pits dug for this express purpose.

What are their dimensions? Someone else more skilled at the study of these things can doubtless arrive at a more accurate estimate, but to my amateur eye, they seem to be roughly four feet by two feet, although I have no idea at all of their depth, or if each pit was dug to the same level.

Why were so many pits dug? I would guess that Hawley decided to put different materials into each pit, as we know he kept the cremated human remains separate and these were later reburied in Aubrey Hole 7 in 1935. I would also guess that instead of digging one huge pit, which might turn out to be a waste of labour because he’d miscalculated the amount of disposable material he had to hand, he had a series of pits dug. This would enable him to place different materials in each pit, perhaps, while he’d also be able to more accurately gauge the amount of pits required for his ever-decreasing stock of finds from Stonehenge. But that’s only my guess.

What precisely is in these pits? God only knows and there’s only one way we’ll find out. However, we know that Hawley kept cremated human remains separate, so it’s not unthinkable that he might have reburied other skeletal, non-cremated human remains that he’d excavated. Some years ago, a hefty collection of pottery dug up by Hawley at Stonehenge found its way onto eBay via a house clearance and subsequent sale, but this doesn’t rule out the pits, or ‘graves’ containing more of the same.

Worked flint, burned flint and flint artefacts are other likelihoods, while I think it’s most likely that there’ll be a large amount of animal bone. Then there could be worked bone, sarsen mauls, carved chalk plaques, fragments of bluestone, stone axes and other obvious contenders, but the blunt fact is that we simply don’t know, because he could have put absolutely anything there.

What I find most amazing are the sheer quantities involved. I don’t know how many ‘graves’ were dug and I don’t know the dimensions of these pits, but even if just half the features in the photo above were purposely dug to tip Stonehenge relics into, then there are patently a huge amount. Each find would have been cleaned for inspection before being put to one side, so the idea of even as few as twenty trips, each with a full wheelbarrow of finds from Stonehenge, makes the mind reel, but of course, there could be much more than this.

Of course, all those of us who have a fascination for Stonehenge find it inconceivable that the monument could have been despoiled in such a way, with the vast amount of finds simply being tipped back into rough holes with no record of precisely where they had been found. Nor does there appear to be any kind of a record of these finds at all, other than the fact that they once existed and were reburied in what appear to be such huge quantities.

Unless they’ve all been dug up again and lost since the 1920s, which seems unlikely, simple logic tells us that there is a treasure trove at Stonehenge awaiting excavation. I would say that bringing these finds to light once more could do no harm whatsoever to the monument and would only add to its allure, if such a thing were possible. As I wrote at the start of this post, I would assume that the new Visitors Centre and the new museum at Amesbury would be anxious to be able to display Stonehenge-related material, so ‘Hawley’s Graves’ seem me to be the obvious place to go in search of such readily-available artefacts.

Well, I could continue in this vein for literally hours, happily speculating on the contents of “Hawley’s Graves” and on what we might reasonably infer about Stonehenge from the existence of each one of the thousands of finds that almost certainly await our inspection. On balance, I suppose I’d be most intrigued by any Roman artefacts that Hawley might have reburied, simply on account of the possibility of studying any Stonehenge-related writing, but as always, I’d be interested to hear what others have to say on these matters.

My grateful thanks once more to Juris Ozols and MOJO Productions of Minnesota for the illustrations and to Margaret Down for the above photograph.

Alongside pressure for finding out the contents of the Hawley pits and publication of those contents, there should also be pressure for the proper publication of the results of the Atkinson excavations at Stonehenge in the 1950s.

Although in the light of a Government obsessed with cuts in pursuit of doctrinaire politics, holding your breath is likely to be a futile exercise on both counts.

When we recall that The Stonehenge Riverside Project obtained permission for and then re-excavated Hawley’s re-buried cremated finds from Aubrey Hole 7 not very long ago, it seems entirely logical that Hawley’s “Graves” should also be the subject of re-excavation. And some of that excavated material should go on display, not only at the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre and the Salisbury and Devizes Museums, but also in the planned Amesbury Museum, where it can be shown adjacent to the Mesolithic finds from the Vespasian’s Camp vicinity.

Local people are entitled to see some of the Stonehenge finds and to then appreciate and marvel at the continuity of settlement that has occurred – in what is now the Stonehenge World Heritage Site – from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic and well beyond. More serious visitors to Wiltshire’s archaeology will also want to see what Amesbury’s museum has to offer, as well as going to the Visitor Centre. It will all be part of the process of opening up the broader Stonehenge Landscape to the visitor, and deepening his appreciation of it.

Yes, it seems perfectly logical to me that Hawley’s “Graves” could and should be excavated, for the benefit of us all and at the same time, for the benefit of the museums you mention, Tony. I find it hard to get these pits out of my mind, on account of the sheer quantity of material they contain and also because I can’t stop wondering just what Hawley discarded. The new Stonehenge Visitors Centre will naturally want to put artefacts on display, as will the new Amesbury Museum, so it makes sense to me to head straight for a huge supply of such things rather than to deprive the Devizes and Salisbury museums of their collections.

When I lived on Salisbury Plain, I was entitled to a free pass to Stonehenge, which I used as many as three times a week for a decade. I would agree with you that local people are also entitled in principle to see some of the Stonehenge finds, but as it’s a World Heritage Site, then logic dictates that everyone should be able to study them in some way, whether that’s in a museum or on an as yet non-existent internet site. However, the expression “The meek shall inherit the Earth, but not its mineral rights” springs to mind for some reason.

Have we moved on from Atkinson? Commercial considerations now dominate and in what world would a mega NG production involving a huge number of “river walkers” be undermined? The ‘much paid piper’ just plays a tune.

Dennis, I totally agree with your sentiments. However, my feeling is that Stonehenge is currently run by an older generation of insiders, often with third-rate or non-existent qualifications, and I don’t really trust them to dig anything up. Certainly not after the “healing bluestone” dig for telly.

Recently Mike Pitts made a link to a key job in the new set-up for “Interpreting Stonehenge” – the job had already been assigned by the time I looked and I definitely did not feel qualified to apply in any case. Still, I worked for many years in highly professional environments and this job description would not pass muster on any basis and in any serious context – it looks like a fuzzy formality for a job that has already been given away. An insider game.

I hope I am not offending the person chosen, but I do believe the bar could have been set very high for this position even if the salary is not spectacular.

I would prefer Hawley’s Graves to be left untouched until a new generation of archaeologists take over. We have a fantastic richness in properly qualified youngsters who can do justice to the subject while making careful records for any future generation which is interested. Until they take over – no more digging!

Chris
I agree, unfortunately, that waiting for a new generation of archeologists is preferable to having the current, hidebound group dig in an slipshod fashion. The basic problem, however, is one that time alone may not address adequately. Looking in from the outside, I see compelling evidence of what is best described, ironically, as a mature bureaucracy-one of the most rapacious and horrifying creations humans are capable of. Such an organism exists with only one goal-to continue its existence and grow, perpetuating the mind-numbing culture that is its hallmark. Modifying or destroying such a culture requires a sea change that rarely happens. Usually, the only way it occurs is when the current perpetrators f*** up so egregiously that they are eliminated by the authority of the next level of mature bureaucracy. Time will tell the tale.

A century ago, the sexual behaviour of penguins was observed by a member of Captain Scott’s polar team, who thought the acts he witnessed were “depraved”. His opinion, presumably, was in keeping with the mores of the times, but what particularly interested me from the above BBC link was the second paragraph, which stated “Details….recorded by Dr George Murray Levick were considered so shocking that they were removed from official accounts.”

As far as I’m aware, most of what Hawley found at Stonehenge never found it into an official account in the first place, so the later removal from the records was redundant. So, I ask myself why this should be? There are many possible explanations, all of them depressing, but can I rule out the possibility that Hawley found something (or things) “so shocking” as far as the mores of the times were concerned that he didn’t record ‘it’, but instead buried it? Remember, his excavations were taking place at roughly the same time that the sexual behaviour of penguins was considered so outrageous, but I think there’s more to the matter than just that.

As late as the 1960s, when Atkinson was concluding his infamous rampage at Stonehenge, he “analysed and published but a bare fraction of what he dug up” (see Hengeworld by Mike Pitts, page 3) while he also angrily declared that the celebrants at Stonehenge in prehistory were “practically savages – howling barbarians”, an outburst I’ve studied before now in my book The Missing Years of Jesus and on this site.

Given the amount of material that we could reasonably expect Hawley’s Graves to contain, the mind positively reels at this degree of dereliction being repeated and possibly even exceeded decades later, while the combined total of finds and information that was discarded or concealed by Hawley and Atkinson puts me in mind of the woeful tale of the murder of Hypatia and the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. The destruction in 391 AD seems to have taken place at the behest of Emperor Theodosius I, who loathed the pagans, so once again, I find myself wondering if a similar sentiment pertaining to “howling barbarians” and people who were “practically savages” was ultimately responsible for the repeated vandalism at Stonehenge by those acting on behalf of The Establishment of the times.

I got the impression from watching Wainwright & Darvill’s 2008 dig, both courtesy of the BBC’s daily excavation video reports (still no doubt retrievable on the Net) and having visited Stonehenge to observe their techniques of excavation on site, that the approved methodologies were scrupulously undertaken. And most of those leading the larger scale work, for the Stonehenge Riverside Project, were senior archaeology academics (as is Darvill), aided by an army of archaeology students from their respective Universities. I have heard no criticism of their technical approach to the excavations: and the media had plenty of opportunity to criticise, should they have felt themselves justified in so doing.

Mike Pitts tells us in “Hengeworld” that Colonel Hawley, in his opinion based upon Pitts’ own examination of his fieldwork notes, ended up with rather a bad press, particularly, and ironically, from Atkinson. Hawley was obliged to plough a very lonely furrow, metaphorically speaking, under often quite extreme climatic conditions, over the many years he excavated in the 1920′s. His masters, the Society of Antiquaries up in London town, appeared to give him no direction, resources, opportunity for adequate rest, or encouragement. Yet Mike Pitts does applaud Hawley’s work in many respects, certainly in comparison to Richard Atkinson’s work. I urge people to read “Hengeworld” (2000) for a balanced viewpoint – second – hand copies easily obtainable.

I’ve read Hengeworld and I refer to it here often, Tony. Regardless of any merits of Hawley’s work and regardless of what his paymasters dictated, the fact remains that he gave away many of the finds to his friends and dumped God only knows how many others in some pits near the ruins. Given that Atkinson later had an abysmally low opinion of the people who built the monument that kept him employed for around 15 years, I don’t think it’s out of the question that Hawley might have entertained similar views some thirty years beforehand. At least we know where these relics were buried and there’s every chance they’re still there, so this is one redeeming aspect of an otherwise truly depressing affair.

Yes Dennis, I am of course well aware that you refer to “Hengeworld” frequently on your blogsite – that remark was directed at those who may not have read “Hengeworld”.

Do you not think that the Society of Antiquaries, Hawley’s paymasters, back in the 1920s at least, had a rather antiquated attitude to what was becoming the Science of Archaeology? If Hawley was giving some samples of his finds away to his friends, all I can say is, at least his re-burial elsewhere at Stonehenge of hopefully quite large proportions of his finds, albeit now completely out of their original stratigraphical contexts, leaves us at least something to work on: but it is rather like trying to piece together early 20th Century London from excavating an area subject to Hitler’s Blitz.

We’ve got crossed wires about Hengeworld, Tony, and the fault was all mine because I know what you meant; my reply was clumsy and I’m sorry for this.

As for the contents of Hawley’s Graves, I’m an eternal optimist. Yes, these ‘things’ would be out of context, but being able to examine something like 40 wheelbarrows full (at a rough guess) of flint, pottery, animal bones, human bones, coins, worked bone, sarsen, bluestone, axes, maces, mauls, chalk objects, metal and God only knows what else would be akin to being “some watcher of skies” when a new planet appears.

We know that it all came from Stonehenge, so it would give us a far better idea of what the prehistoric engineers and celebrants were up to and I’m inclined to think that if the people behind the recent revelations concerning a fire pit and the like at the Cursus can legitimately indulge in “speculative reconstruction”, then so can anyone and everyone else.

I see Hawley as a very important investigator into Stonehenge and one who did not have his own axe to grind. If so, he just reported what he saw without spin? His actions otherwise were in just in accordance with the times. Indeed, that sentiment applies to more recent excavations and a far less innocent era where minds are set – but they will also have to bear the criticism of the future.

I enjoyed Hengeworld although I would have enjoyed it more had Mike not used some TV tricks – “hey here is something exciting, now wait two chapters and I’ll tell you what happened. Stay tuned!”. His story was sufficiently solid that I was not going to tune-out and I would have preferred less of a “BBC Diamond Jubilee” approach – treat me like an adult please.

The technical work on the recent Stonehenge dig was state-of-the-art I think – but I am not a professional. Still every investigation is biased by the agenda of the investigators, the budget, and the influence in this case of making something gripping for TV.

You might argue that we are so fascinated to know what Hawley buried that any agenda is ok – it will doubtless make fascinating TV. I too would like to know. It might even be that he buried something so culturally horrific in his time that a new chapter opens in our understanding of the monument. Still I would have difficulty distinguishing between such an effort done by the modern establishment under modern constraints from the sensation seeking curiosity of the Georgian and Victorian barrow diggers.

It is a difficult balance. Without the barrow diggers our interest in these ancient times would not have been triggered and much more would have been ploughed under. The modern establishment deserve considerable credit for raising public interest to the extent that we have laws around antiquities and budgets for rescue digs. Still I think Stonehenge is a mystery of great importance and when our generation goes digging we should not have a preset agenda or be worried about digging against the clock to make good TV.

Well said, John. Nice to hear someone else defending Hawley as a ‘child of his times’ (The Colonel woudn’t like that description, mind you!). The real tragedy was that large scale investigations below ground were demanded at all by the British ruling classes after World War One. Who said patience is a virtue – he probably wasn’t an archaeologist.

If Hawley had one great fault, it was his lack of assertiveness. He dug at Stonehenge as a duty, not a passion, and was easily led by others away from the facts as they emerged from the excavations. The classic example of this comes from a preliminary report on his efforts in the 1921 Antiquaries Journal where he made a fairly straightforward observation on the Aubrey Holes:

“The holes vary very little in size and shape: the biggest is 3 ft. 5 in. deep, its maximum diameter 5 ft. 3 in., and the minimum 4 ft. 6 in. The smallest is 2 ft. deep, maximum diameter 2 ft. 6 in., and minimum 2 ft. 5 in. They are as a rule sharp and regular cuttings in the chalk, and are all more or less circular. Many have the edge of the chalk crater shorn away, or crushed down, on the side towards the standing stones of Stonehenge, this being apparently due either to the insertion or withdrawal of a stone, probably the latter. From their appearance and regularity there can be little doubt that they once held small upright stones; for, in two cases at least, a portion of the excavated chalk appears to have been returned, as if the hole had been too deeply dug to suit the intended height of the stone. This returned rubble was extremely hard and compacted, as if a very heavy weight had rested upon it for a long time. With the exception of four holes, all bore evidence of cremated human remains having been deposited in them, and at least three showed signs that actual cremation had been carried out in them.”

Unfortunately, Hawley’s lack of conviction serves to emphasize an irony of history that prevented a correct interpretation of the Aubrey Circle for almost 8 decades. By the time Hawley gave his final report in the same journal in 1929, the stone circle he speculated existed just inside the henge at Stonehenge had become the infamous circle of “ritual pits” or, possibly, timber posts that R. J. C. Atkinson, a later excavator and the interpreter of Stonehenge (wrongly, it appears) locked into place. The reason for Hawley’s reversal is primarily Maude Cunnington’s dig at the nearby Woodhenge and the excitement this timber circle evoked. Hawley, at Newall’s urging, backed off his assertion even though his observations were far more astute than Atkinson’s, who excavated two more Aubrey Holes in the 1950s.

MPP restored the strong possibility that the Aubrey Holes held stones from the recent re-excavation of Aubrey hole 7 where R.S. Newall dumped the cremations back in 1935 due to a total lack of interest from any museum in storing these worthless relics. Hawley probably dumped the bulk of non-human remains in the “graves” for the same reason. The blame for these misjudgements and archeocrimes can best be placed at the feet of the archeological community of the times as Hawley literally had no other choice.

Atkinson, on the other hand, stands guilty of deliberate manipulation of facts and muddying of the waters to insure that he would be the only interpreter of Stonehenge. His willful dismissal of Hawley’s earlier observations (He must have been aware of them and chose to pretend they didn’t exist, or was so incompetent he should never have been allowed to dig anywhere) as well as his not following up on the crushed chalk and its significance when he explored two further Aubrey Holes stand as an indictment of his methods and agenda.

Anyone who is allowed to dig in future at Stonehenge should do so with all the available facts in hand and a list of questions as to what mysteries remain unanswered and what specific areas need targeting – things like “Is there another stonehole on the other side of the Slaughter stone?” (The place where Hawley dumped the overburden from his Avenue excavations) and “How many stones formed the Bluestone Circle?” The most rigorous excavation procedures will provide few answers unless you dig in the right place.

We all know what’s meant by someone being a product or a child of their time, but I’m naturally more impressed by the likes of Leonardo da Vinci than I am by Hawley. I don’t see any great reason to be impressed by him, although it’s ironic that his disposal of the assorted Stonehenge treasures led him to bury them, as this will almost certainly mean that the finds and artefacts have been kept far safer than they would have been in a private collection or even a museum.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the human remains that Hawley reburied in Aubrey Hole 7 were in excellent condition when they were dug up again recently, according to the experts, so I imagine we could reasonably expect the same from the contents of Hawley’s Graves.

While Hawley may have been little more than a glorified Errand Boy, it seems to me that Atkinson was in a different league altogether, while I still cannot understand precisely what was behind his outburst describing our ancestors as “practically savages – howling barbarians”. In brief, I find myself in complete agreement with Dan on these matters, while it shouldn’t take the contributors to Eternal Idol very long to put together an exhaustive list of which mysteries remain unanswered (unless, that is, you subscribe to the deranged TOAOTATS theorem).

“practically savages – howling barbarians” also seems to be a personal judgement rather than something based in fact?

Atkinson opposed astro-archaeology but (perhaps reluctantly) accepted that the avenue was aligned to solstice by design. Then Thoms later showed evidence for astro-archaeology elsewhere, so Atkinson’s original statement (accepting the alignment) became established as an absolute fact: The alignment to Solstice is the only thing that everyone knows to be true about Stonehenge and, it appears to me, all because of a statement made by someone whose personal judgement was to oppose the ideas?

This idea of re-excavation is intriguing, and not just for Hawley. Here’s some other possibilities that intrigue me.

1 – Go back into Bush Barrow and see if Cunnington left behind enough of the skeleton of the bloke there so that we can find out more. The man was obviously enormously important. If C14 dating might establish that he lived early on in the Stonehenge time frame, then it’s seductive to speculate that he was the “Stonehenge Architect.” Bothering him again could give us insights. And suppose that tooth enamel analysis would show that he came from Wales? Spectacular! (Incidentally, some ten years ago I had the chance to spend an afternoon at the Devizes Museum reading the handwritten originals of Cunnington’s notes – transcribed by his daughter I believe – on his diggings. A wonderful way to immerse oneself into Stonehenge, truly an experience.)

2. Poke around the base of Stone 11 and determine if the stonehole matches the size of the stone. Or if the runt stone is set in a much bigger stone hole of “standard size.” That could give us real insight into the question of whether Stonehenge was ever completed or not.

3. This may not be exactly re-excavation but it would be intriguing to find out who lies in the King Barrows. The people resting there could well be of a stature like that of the Bush Barrow fellow. Apparently Cunnington didn’t get his shovels into those barrows. Stukely makes a vague reference to things dug up in the “Seven Barrows” but that’s about all. So if they in fact are pristine burials, then given modern analyses it could be very valuable. More Kings of Stonehenge?

4. See if there’s anything of consequence around that sheep watering trough at Stonehenge Bottom. You have to believe that millennia of rain must have washed all kinds of things from Stonehenge and the Avenue down there. There must be artifacts of interest.

5. And finally, do a section across that intriguing linear feature between Barrow 40 and the King Barrows. There’s a potential “Avenue” there, and we can never have enough Avenues.

Digging up Hawley’s detritus for re-examination would be fascinating to be sure. But there are numerous other possibilities for Stonehenge archeology that might also give us all kinds of stories.

Ever so much remains to be discovered. I think the best is yet to come.

I just wonder how much conviction modern day archaeologists would have working without the technological paraphernalia available to them today and without the knowledge acquired in the last 90 years? Dennis has pointed out there still remain far more, indeed far too many, questions than answers.

In the middle of reading MPP’s new book. He reminds me how much remains to be discovered, also in Prescelli, and he points to many areas for further study including the meaning of Stonehenge in the mesolithic. He also reminds me how much evidence has already been dug-up, often lost, and how much that remains is still to be analyzed.

Juris makes a good list too. Much as I would like to see a better understanding of the King Barrows I would also like to see more work done into the earlier phases, extending back into the mesolithic. There is more and more evidence that the Stonehenge location has been important since the Younger Dryas – perhaps Vespasian’s Camp deserves more attention. Similarly MPP asserts that the Bluestones were erected around 3000 BC and speculates that there must have been a link to Northern Prescelly based on analysis of the stones – this area has never been investigated seriously.